5619 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

But it is tethered to actual demand. Because they go out and measure the demand, by counting other sites.

Plus, parking spots aren't cheap (never have checked myself, but was quoted at $89,000 earlier in this thread).... If you can only afford a one bedroom with no parking, could you really afford that same one bedroom with parking at 10% to 20% higher purchase price?

They create theories based on hypotheticals.

It’s not scientific, it’s not exact, and it has created a parking shortage in the city.

A stall also isn’t $90k, it’s usually $35-$55k, and can be less depending on soil conditions.

This whole conversation is about insufficient parking, whether it’s a ROP zone near a park or a parkade in a residential building, and we’re trying to convince each other it’s just a myth, for some reason.

[Barrrister]

I remember when building were also required to provide a number of stalls for guest parking back in the day when it was assumed that humans were to occupy condos. You know people with family and friends,

[Mike K.]

Yes, and for a number of reasons that’s no longer the case in the downtown core (usually security related). So now you have an even tighter supply of on-Street parking after 6PM.

My biggest pet peeve, and Ismo knows this, is the 9AM parking charge start time. Lots of meetings start at 7AM in my industry and in some cases you can’t find on-street stalls within a block or two until 9AM when the first shuffle happens.

[Nparker]

I remember when building[s] were also required to provide a number of stalls for guest parking...

My mid-90s condo building has 6 guest parking spaces. 

[Ismo07]

It's a bad thing because now the City of Victoria is calling you a gamer of the system by not having a place to park your vehicle. And didn't you tell us in another thread most cyclists are drivers?

 

All of this feel-good stuff eventually catches up with society. And we now have a parking crisis in the city centre for reasons that are entirely at the feet of officialdom who believed, as you say, that their efforts would make condos much more cheaper and affordable.

 

I don't mean to harp on Ismo, but the parking policy we are employing is clearly not working.

 

Oh this blew up a little.  This is what is happening in many, many cities across N.A.  Let's not blame the City specifically for this.  These parking restrictions have not started a parking crisis Mike, what the unbundling has done however, and this isn't City policy btw, is that people are choosing not to pay for the storage of their cars.  They would rather save the money and park on the street.  Again the intention is that people without cars wouldn't need to pay for a space and then people with cars do not appreciate the value of storing a vehicle perhaps up to 90% or more of the time so they don't pay it and expect free street parking.  Again this isn't a City policy so look more to the developers and property managers who have taken this route.

[Mike K.]

The City approves parking counts at new projects, and developers can only propose lower counts but aren’t given free reign. With the precedents that have been set, more projects are appearing with fewer stalls because the City permits that to happen. But now you say residents are gaming the system if they park on the street. Well, yeah. They’ll park where they can because their residences don’t have sufficient parking for them.

What’s not convenient is walking nine bags of groceries two blocks, so people try not to do it. There’s also the safety aspect where if a vehicle is near the residence and in front of a residential building, there will be more eyes on the vehicle and therefore less chance of a break-in.

The parking equation downtown is 100% at the feet of the City. They are the gatekeeper.

[Ismo07]

The City approves parking counts at new projects, and developers can only propose lower counts but aren’t given free reign. With the precedents that have been set, more projects are appearing with fewer stalls because the City permits that to happen. But now you say residents are gaming the system if they park on the street. Well, yeah. They’ll park where they can because their residences don’t have sufficient parking for them.

What’s not convenient is walking nine bags of groceries two blocks, so people try not to do it. There’s also the safety aspect where if a vehicle is near the residence and in front of a residential building, there will be more eyes on the vehicle and therefore less chance of a break-in.

The parking equation downtown is 100% at the feet of the City. They are the gatekeeper.

 

The issue I am hearing is that the residents in the buildings will not pay to have their car stored not that there isn't enough parking for them.  Again while the planning restrictions are the City's (nothing that tells developers they need a cap on parking spaces) it allows the developers more freedoms not less.  Again there is parking, just the cost is too much because now it's not buried in the rent, so people feel they are now paying too much so they take their chances on the streets, get tickets, then come and demand a permit, which they do not get.  To be honest, I'm not sure the rent decreased at all, only that parking is now extra.  This is the developer and the property managers.  Sorry Mike.  Why should residents store their car on the City right of way for free where they could store off-street for a cost?  Shouldn't Victoria utilize on-street parking fees to a certain point to help reduce the tax burden and fund other programs?  Should vehicle storage be free?

 

The City is not the gatekeeper for private and strata parking policy.  Sorry.

 

Again cities everywhere are reducing parking minimums in downtowns and even further out.  Developers want this obviously.  

[Ismo07]

So what you're saying, then, is the City of Victoria has created a bad policy, but it's the taxpayer/resident that is gaming the system by falling victim to the bad policy?

 

 

Why would I ever say something like that?  Maybe call me to understand if I'm not explaining it in a way that you will understand.  This reduced minimum is endorsed by the development community.  

[Mike K.]

The City of Victoria is approving significant density without parking provisions, or limited parking provisions. Many hundreds of residential units have gone up over the last few years with zero parking provisions, zilch.

I understand residential density trumps parking supply in some instances, especially in Old Town, but I disagree with calling people who park on the street as gaming the system. That’s very unfair, and my sticking point in this discussion.

But let’s forget all of that for a moment. Why isn’t the City of Victoria charging money to park all night on the street? Is $4 for a 6PM-9AM parking period unreasonable? If there’s a problem with turnover all day long, fees should be introduced. And ideally metered parking at hourly rates should start at least at 8AM.

[Ismo07]

The City of Victoria is approving significant density without parking provisions, or limited parking provisions. Many hundreds of residential units have gone up over the last few years with zero parking provisions, zilch.

I understand residential density trumps parking supply in some instances, especially in Old Town, but I disagree with calling people who park on the street as gaming the system. That’s very unfair, and my sticking point in this discussion.

But let’s forget all of that for a moment. Why isn’t the City of Victoria charging money to park all night on the street? Is $4 for a 6PM-9AM parking period unreasonable? If there’s a problem with turnover all day long, fees should be introduced. And ideally metered parking at hourly rates should start at least at 8AM.

 

C'mon Mike, the only resident units that have come in to the inventory with no parking are places in Old Town that are renovated and would be silly to demand parking for these buildings.  New builds all have parking, but at a cost.  

 

The City hasn't charged for evening parking, at least over night as capacity is typically there.  Could the City look at charging a little later into the evening?  It had been suggested in the past but turned down.  Obviously with the current situation that likely wouldn't be recommended for a while.  

 

I know you'd love to see the 8am charge and that might come at some point.  I do not see the need at this time, when I walk downtown at 8am I don't see much of an issue to find a spot in most parts of the City.  A little around City Hall and where there are gyms.

Edited by Ismo07, 15 September 2020 - 09:09 AM.

[Mike K.]

I understand the Old Town situation and why I said density trumps parking in some cases, but there are modern new-builds the City approved with zero or extremely limited on-site parking. I can think of several examples that have materialized in recent years. Historically this was addressed by private parking lots, but I’ll get to that below.

The City of Victoria did not adequately plan for the situation that has materialized. Not only have they approved hundreds of residences without on-site parking provisions, they have presided over an unprecedented loss of parking when developments overtook surface lots and converted public parking to private parking. And while focusing on public pathways as amenities (that end up being closed to the public out of safety concerns), no plan was put in place to address that unprecedented loss of private parking supply.

[Ismo07]

I understand the Old Town situation and why I said density trumps parking in some cases, but there are modern new-builds the City approved with zero or extremely limited on-site parking. I can think of several examples that have materialized in recent years. Historically this was addressed by private parking lots, but I’ll get to that below.

The City of Victoria did not adequately plan for the situation that has materialized. Not only have they approved hundreds of residences without on-site parking provisions, they have presided over an unprecedented loss of parking when developments overtook surface lots and converted public parking to private parking. And while focusing on public pathways as amenities (that end up being closed to the public out of safety concerns), no plan was put in place to address that unprecedented loss of private parking supply.

 

Glad we took this off-line and I won.

[Mike K.]

Lol, yeahuh.

[G-Man]

I think the issue that is complicating the issue is that the city is supplying a resource for free which anyone will tell you will be overused rather than have someone choose the paid option.

[Mike K.]

The solution just could be to charge parking fees at popular destinations like local parks, and to provide proper parking lots in exchange, so there’s no conflict.

[Barrrister]

Parks are something that one wants to keep accessible to everyone as much as possible. 

[On the Level]

The City of Victoria did not adequately plan for the situation that has materialized. Not only have they approved hundreds of residences without on-site parking provisions, they have presided over an unprecedented loss of parking when developments overtook surface lots and converted public parking to private parking. 

 

Not that I agree with their logic, but I think they know exactly what they are doing.  If you live downtown, there is no need for a car.  If you live elsewhere, you should stay there.  Businesses that catered to commuters and tourists will transform to ones that support Victorians that stay put.  

[Ismo07]

Not that I agree with their logic, but I think they know exactly what they are doing.  If you live downtown, there is no need for a car.  If you live elsewhere, you should stay there.  Businesses that catered to commuters and tourists will transform to ones that support Victorians that stay put.  

 

That's not a great analysis.  I've never heard of that logic policy-wise or as a strategy.  Until this pandemic parking transactions have only increased, new strategies have been piloted that helped commuters use less used streets, other streets converted to allow for longer term parking.  I live downtown and have a car as do the majority but there is an increasing number who do not own a car but they have a unit with a space.  There are options that help people get by without owning a car individually.  There is so much going on that to simplify like you have does illustrate your ire.  These are the times when anyone can say anything and it becomes other peoples truth.  Gone are the days of understanding.

[IPH]

Wow, have to step in here as it sounds like some of you are suggesting that ROP is free, its not!  The parking was paid for by the developer (and subsequently passed on to the home owner) when the subdivision was created.  its hard to calculate the cost in the past as rates and costs have varied so lets look at a current cost for a new development in the city.

 

 

If someone has a large lot in Fairfield say 100 x 120 and decide to rezone or subdivide this into two residential lots the City requires that they pay for all new: sidewalks, curb and gutter, boulevard landscaping, street lighting, irrigation sleeves, and repaving the road to the center line of the street for the entire width of the 2 new lots.  This costs approx. $50-100K per lot depending on where in the neighbourhood due to road width, type of road base (gravel or concrete), number of trees required etc.  So that translates to $50-$100K per residence.  This road & sidewalk benefit more than just the developer or the residents of the new homes as the public walk the sidewalk and drive on the road.

 

Yes the developer of higher density buildings also has to pay the frontage improvement costs for roads, sidewalks etc.  But the same $50-$100K is spread out over 50 to 100 new units rather than the single family dwelling.  As such I would argue the roughly $1K /unit they have paid is a small cost for the use of the roads and sidewalks but does not pay for any parking.    

 

On top of this the City's parking bylaws (Schedule C) require the SFD developer to provide at least one off street parking stall per residence.  As this is generally surface parking it is a percentage of the lot that is dedicated to parking only.  At an average 6000 ft2 Fairfield lot price of approx. $1M and an average parking space of approx. 200 ft2 (not including the driveway to get it behind the front wall of the home which is also required) that's an additional $33K, (plus the cost of paving it) that the developer and therefore homeowner have to pay for parking. That's about the same construction cost as providing underground parking at a condo or apartment.  The condo or apartment do not have any incremental or marginal land cost for that parking stall since it is below grade and does not remove other uses for the land above ground.

 

The city is now approving ton's of new higher density housing in the core areas including those abutting the ROP areas with little to no parking requirements.  Case in point GMC's new 30 unit rental building at 1015 Cook street with only 4 parking stalls.  I understand those parking stalls are reserved for three car share vehicles and one visitors spot.  This leaves zero parking stalls for any of the 30 - 60 residents of the building that may own cars.  If you think that no resident of this building will own a car, you are beyond naive, your delusional.  Those tenants will simply flood the ROP zones along Burdett, Mcclure, Linden, Richardson, Trutch etc. that some one else has paid for.

 

Some of you have suggested taxes pay for these roads and that we all pay the same tax.   The assessed value (and therefore property tax) of an average condo or single apartment unit in Victoria is way less than a single family home.  On top of that the closer the single family dwelling is to the core the higher the land value so rather than paying the average $4K a year someone else quoted above, many of the SFD's along the same streets mention above are paying $6-$8K a year in property tax.  These residents don't use any more city provided services than the condo or apartment dweller so I think its reasonable to say the extra $4-$6K a year they pay in property taxes should cover their ROP fee!

[Mike K.]

City Hall staff are constantly talking about alternative transportation modes to and within the core. The bike lanes are all about re-prioritizing the infrastructure network. Look at Vancouver Street, which is being completely re-prioritized.

Staff are also growing sympathetic to increasing parking stall reductions at new projects, to the point where projects are now being approved outside of existing old town transformations with zero parking, or extremely limited (1-4 stalls) parking.

So it’s all by-design, and not coincidental.